Sendraks wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Erm, no it's not Will.

You'd better go look up what 'argument from authority' means before stating so publicly.

And I've already explained to Teague, why its not an argument from authority, albeit attributing the authority to the wrong person (Rachel, not Shrunk).

Spearthrower wrote:

kennyc wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Lol, no it isn't. It's the definition of extremism. Extremism =/= mental illness.

Preach to the psychiatrist about the definition of mental illness though. It's funny.

Yep, it's like telling a politician they are out of touch with the public. Quite funny actually to see politicians and psychiatrists that either don't understand their job or intentionally distort reality due to their ideologies.

I think the appropriate reply was: oops!

Sendraks wrote:

Teague wrote:So someone who is trained and employed to do a certain job and is going out to war is the exact same thing as someone who plans on murdering someone to get their money?

How is someone murdering someone in war, because it is the right thing to do, different to someone murdering a.n.other person because they think it is the right thing to do?

Also, military training is about ensuring that the soldier has the psychological wherewithal to kill when necessary.

But, you seem to think you're the expert. Do illuminate me on how the mental processes are starkly different. Go ahead. Explain how person a) is not mentally ill and b) is?

Teague wrote:Want to try again?

Would you like to try at all?

Spearthrower wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Teague wrote:
Usually when asked to provide a source, you provide a source and is hearsay not the act of taking what someone says as fact without checking up on that?

Do you dispute that Shrunk is a psychiatrist?

No but this is an argument from authority.

Erm, no it's not Will.

You'd better go look up what 'argument from authority' means before stating so publicly.

Spearthrower wrote:

Teague wrote:
I think you'll find I was exploring the possibility that it could be. If I asserted that anyway then my apologies.

I believe you asserted it a number of times, but I don't see as you need to apologize for it - you just need to cite or retract.

Elaine Whitfield Sharp is a defense attorney who has worked on hundreds of murder cases over the past 20 years. And while she thinks Stevens' points are valid, she believes the fundamental problem with capital punishment is more basic than that.

"You see, I truly believe that murderers are mentally ill," she explains. "Their brains don't work like the rest of ours do. To deliberately kill someone requires crossing a profound boundary. Most of us couldn't do it. We couldn't even think about it. But they can. They do. Why? Because they're mentally ill. And fundamentally, as a society, I believe it is barbaric to kill people who are ill."

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ill/67295/

A defense attorney who makes a living by ensuring her clients don't go to jail! Interesting!

But not really the kind of source I was asking for. What I am looking for, as I clearly mentioned, is published, peer-reviewed research in the medical literature.

Teague wrote:

On these same lines, I also came across a show on young killers and I wondered if there were any shared traits that could explain the path these young people took. The show invited a panel of experts who commented on their underdeveloped brains, their emotional irrationality and the gang mentality rampant in children and teens to explicate their murderous tendencies. It was fascinating to see that there could be so many excuses for murder. It makes you wonder why all of us don't commit at least one murder in our lives from the sheer consequence of our human anatomy. This analysis belies the possibility that our complacency with violence and resignation to base human instincts maybe the real issue at play. In reality, reasoning out murder only adds validation to an atrocity. It is important to reform attitudes to include personal responsibility as a factor in order to reduce the entitled approach to murder that we see these days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sana-syed ... 09258.html

That's even more interesting - you're citing a neurologist in support of your contention, but in the very same piece Syed writes quite unequivocally that...

This profile serves to exculpate personal responsibility and falls back on the excuse of mental illness and potential racial profiling for a heinous act. Due to our discomfort with the fact that people can kill, the mental health system is suddenly on trial for failure to prevent murder. Its important to mention that there are a proportion of crimes that are committed due to mental disease or defect, but to exonerate all killers based on their mental profile is a crime in itself.

Essentially, you've cited a genuine authority on the brain's functioning who is diametrically opposed to your position, even going so far to call your stated position 'criminal'.

Teague wrote:

Homicidal ideation is a common medical term for thoughts about homicide. There is a range of homicidal thoughts which spans from vague ideas of revenge to detailed and fully formulated plans without the act itself.[1] Many people who have homicidal ideation do not commit homicide. 50-91% of people surveyed on university grounds in various places in the USA admit to having had a homicidal fantasy.[2] Homicidal ideation is common, accounting for 10-17% of patient presentations to psychiatric facilities in the USA.[1]

Homicidal ideation is not a disease itself, but may result from other illnesses such as psychosis and delirium. Psychosis, which accounts for 89% of admissions with homicidal ideation in one US study,[3] includes substance induced psychosis (e.g. amphetamine psychosis) and the psychoses related to schizophreniform disorder and schizophrenia. Delirium is often drug induced or secondary to general medical illness(es) (see ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders F05).

It may arise in association with personality disorders or it may occur in people who do not have any detectable illness. In fact, surveys have shown that the majority of people have had homicidal fantasies at some stage in their life.[2] Many theories have been proposed to explain this.[2][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicidal_ideation

I'm a little bit confused about this last one. Assuming it's correct, then it suggests that up to 91% of people have homicidal fantasies, which in the context of your argument would suggest that the vast majority of people are mentally ill.

Teague wrote:Unfortunately, not ideal sources but if you think that there's no conversation to be had, why didn't we stop investigation psychiatry 100 years ago?

Because we're looking to treat people who have psychiatric problems?

Nowhere is the sea change the mental health field has undergone more evident than in treatments for women. Parsing this one example could make the reams of data in this article just a little easier to understand.
In Victorian times, a woman could be considered unbalanced due to a variety of causes, including:

Menstruation-related anger
Pregnancy-related sadness
Post-partum depression symptoms
Disobedience
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Anxiety

Some of these conditions are still considered mental health conditions. But some of these situations are simply part of living as a woman in the world, and they wouldn’t be treated at all by modern practitioners. However, Victorian woman could be placed in institutions due to these conditions, which doctors often labeled “hysteria,” and once there, these women were cared for by a doctor who typically ruled the facility in the same manner in which a Victorian father might rule a home. Women had few, or no, rights, and disobedience was often met with severe punishment.[1]

http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/mental-hea ... n/history/

Sendraks wrote:

Teague wrote:Can you tell me what Rachel's field is before she comes along and helps you out?

Psychiatry.


Not that we need any help dealing with the stuff you're posting.

Sendraks wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Teague wrote:Unfortunately, not ideal sources but if you think that there's no conversation to be had, why didn't we stop investigation psychiatry 100 years ago?

Because we're looking to treat people who have psychiatric problems?

More importantly, actual serious study of psychiatric treatments didn't begin 100 years ago. If you look into the history of treating the mentally ill, you'll find little in the way of actual treatment and plenty in the way of discrimination and abuse.

Hell - even as recently as the 1970s, the state of psychiatry was pretty poor, with expert groups in the US still maintaining the position that homosexuality was a form of mental illness.

willhud9 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Do you dispute that Shrunk is a psychiatrist?

No but this is an argument from authority.

Erm, no it's not Will.

You'd better go look up what 'argument from authority' means before stating so publicly.

Saying that someone is correct because they are a psychiatrist is an argument from authority.

Sendraks wrote:My learned colleague has pointed out to me that I may be confused and in fact that relevant psychiatric expert in this thread might be Shrunk rather than Rachel.



However, this still comes down to individuals in this thread arguing with an expert and expecting their comments to be treated with equal weight. I just got the identity of the expert wrong. For which I apologise.

If anyone feels that this changes the fundamental content of my posts, have at it.

Teague wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Its important to mention that there are a proportion of crimes that are committed due to mental disease or defect, but to exonerate all killers based on their mental profile is a crime in itself.

errrr...this is the point I'm arguing over.

Spearthrower wrote:

Teague wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Teague wrote:

Ahh, I see! You mean 'claim', not 'assertion'. Assertions are necessarily declarative in sentence structure, not interrogative. The offending part of the speech there is actually a relative clause.

But let's grant you the benefit of the doubt there.

You named 'assertions', plural. What other ones did Sendraks allegedly make?

Incidentally, I think everyone reading knows that the manner of your response evaded actually answering those questions.

So allow me to restate them so you can actually answer them, and I will remove the offending relative clause.


On what basis are you challenging that?

'That' indicating my previous post

The act of killing people alone is categorically not seen as a mental illness, or no one would ever be charged of murder or manslaughter as they'd automatically be deemed unfit to stand trial on account of mental illness.

What expertise do you have to mount a coherent challenge against some who is an expert? In this case, we can supplant 'Rachel' with 'professional doctors' and 'judges'.

Was this answer not satisfactory?

So what if all murders become a mental health issue? Are you saying we shouldn't try and treat people with this illness? What about seeing the signs before they murder someone? How about should they have thoughts of murdering someone, they know there's some support they can get?
There would be no such charge of 'murder' if it was simply seen as a behavior of mental illness and consequent diminished responsibility.

Not really as it doesn't answer my questions at all. All I am seeing is you saying: well if we defined it differently than we do now, then I would be right.

In such a parallel universe, I might also redefine the word 'right' to mean 'wrong'.

Teague wrote:Ok so a claim, excuse my syntax though when I said "more assertions" I was talking about the ones so far in this thread which I thought was obvious - did I directly say they where his assertions or allude to that - if so, that wasn't my intent?

Yes, in fact you did directly say that they were assertions, which is why I replied directly to it.

Teague wrote:We can keep arguing syntax all day if you want - I'm here till 6pm UK time

Not at all, although I don't mind if you'd like to. Instead, what I'd like to do is to pin you down to supporting the many claims you've made across this thread. Essentially, you are saying that in the future we might have more knowledge than we do now, and in such a case, your position would be correct. But we are not in that future, we are here now and we can only base knowledge claims on that which we can show to be true. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to support your position in the medical literature, but instead of dismissing your claim out of hand, I have passed the ball back to you asking for the necessary support for your position.

It may well be that you've phrased your points throughout a bit more declaratively than you really meant to, in which case I'd suggest posting a 'sorry, I meant to say it like this...' post, and we can all go on about our business of discussing the topic.

Teague wrote:Can you tell me what Rachel's field is before she comes along and helps you out?

Firstly, I have never claimed any knowledge of Rachel's field of expertise. I haven't appealed to it, or even mentioned it aside from to elide it from a question you'd previously evaded.

The only member whose professional expertise in this field I've alluded to was Shrunk, as he's a professional psychiatrist.

Regardless, I don't really need anyone to 'help me out' here, because my position is quite simple: I would like to see evidence drawn from sources in the medical literature, which support the notion that any time a murder occurs, it is the result of mental illness, or that the act of murder necessarily indicates that the perpetrator is suffering mental illness.

Sendraks wrote:

Teague wrote:My comprehension is fine thank you.

If you say so.

Teague wrote: That you fail to appreciate that medical science changes all the time is your issue, not mine.

Sorry, could you evidence what comments I have made that support this ridiculous claim?

Also - for your edification (which is lacking), science changes (by making new discoveries) all the time. Not just medical science. However, it is poor argument to argue against current science on the speculation that things might change in the future. Which is what you are doing.

Teague wrote:The point I'm making is nothing like homeopathy.

Yes it is.
You are making the same claim as the homeopaths - that science will find things to be different in the future. Whilst you and I both know that this is unlikely science will find out anything in the future that supports homeopathy, doesn't make the argument more valid for subject areas where science is likely to make new discoveries.

You are simply using the argument to avoid dealing with the current facts. Which is what the homeopaths do.
My advice is you stop doing it.

Teague wrote:We know everything there is to know about the mind and the brain and genes? You'll be able to link me to the relevant papers

Strawman.

Teague wrote:I'm sure but in the meantime, whilst you find those, you're also saying that homeopathy is as complicated as science as psychology and genealogy?

And another strawman.

Teague wrote:Yes yes, there's nothing linking psychology to psychiatry, my bad!

And another strawman.

How many crows you trying to scare Teague?

Spearthrower wrote:

Teague wrote:
Usually when asked to provide a source, you provide a source and is hearsay not the act of taking what someone says as fact without checking up on that?

Do you dispute that Shrunk is a psychiatrist?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I beg your pardon but wasn't teague the one whining he shouldn't be expected to check sources because this site is called rational skepticism and he therefore should be able to trust what people post here re: calling Michele Bachmann a cunt for THINGS SHE DIDNT SAY but he is totally in the right to assume she did based on the fact someone posted those words here and look at the forum's name?

But the contributions of a psychiatrist such as Shrunk? Fuck that noise. Heresay! Where are your sources, damnit? All of a sudden even the word of medical doctors in the field of psychiatry is without merit. I wonder what promoted that flipflop.

willhud9 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Teague wrote:
Usually when asked to provide a source, you provide a source and is hearsay not the act of taking what someone says as fact without checking up on that?

Do you dispute that Shrunk is a psychiatrist?

No but this is an argument from authority.

Michael Behe is a biochemist. Just because a person in a field makes claims about something in his fields without empirical support doesn't constitute a valid argument.

In this case, mental illness is such a vague and generic term that covers a wide host of issues such as anxiety disorders, depression, etc. Anxiety disorders affect as far as we know 18% of the total US population. http://www.adaa.org/about-adaa/press-room/facts-statistics

That is greater in prevalence that diabetes. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Coupled with depression and bipolar disorder, there is a strong case that many Americans, and subsequently people are unaware that they have any psychiatric disorder.

Of course the term disorder implies a negative stigma.

I have had depression all my life. By and by I am a happy and carefree individual. Yet everyday I have doubts and self struggles and all the symptoms of PDD. I have to actively watch myself because I can slip into states of moodiness, increased numbness/callousness, and suicidal thoughts...such as what had been happening these past two weeks. But by and by I am a perfectly healthy and functioning adult. Yet I have a mental illness.

The thing is the intentional malicious killing of someone is not by itself wrong. The selfish gene lies dormant in all of us. If I am starving and I see a rich man gorging himself, I may assault the man for food. That is basic instinct.

But there is a case that instinctive thoughts are more impulse driven than conscious thought driven. People with poor impulse control are at a disadvantage than someone with high impulse control. There are differencing factors that contribute to impulse control, but a good many are out of our hands.

Is it ethical to hold people to impossible standards? Of course we should not simply dismiss any consideration for holding people accountable for their actions. But too often than not people are thrust against the wall for doing something horrendous and the entire world condemns them as wicked without blinking an eye.

Spearthrower wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

No but this is an argument from authority.

Erm, no it's not Will.

You'd better go look up what 'argument from authority' means before stating so publicly.

Saying that someone is correct because they are a psychiatrist is an argument from authority.

Which I did where, Will?

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Teague wrote:
Usually when asked to provide a source, you provide a source and is hearsay not the act of taking what someone says as fact without checking up on that?

Do you dispute that Shrunk is a psychiatrist?

No but this is an argument from authority.

Michael Behe is a biochemist. Just because a person in a field makes claims about something in his fields without empirical support doesn't constitute a valid argument.

In this case, mental illness is such a vague and generic term that covers a wide host of issues such as anxiety disorders, depression, etc. Anxiety disorders affect as far as we know 18% of the total US population. http://www.adaa.org/about-adaa/press-room/facts-statistics

That is greater in prevalence that diabetes. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Coupled with depression and bipolar disorder, there is a strong case that many Americans, and subsequently people are unaware that they have any psychiatric disorder.

Of course the term disorder implies a negative stigma.

I have had depression all my life. By and by I am a happy and carefree individual. Yet everyday I have doubts and self struggles and all the symptoms of PDD. I have to actively watch myself because I can slip into states of moodiness, increased numbness/callousness, and suicidal thoughts...such as what had been happening these past two weeks. But by and by I am a perfectly healthy and functioning adult. Yet I have a mental illness.

The thing is the intentional malicious killing of someone is not by itself wrong. The selfish gene lies dormant in all of us. If I am starving and I see a rich man gorging himself, I may assault the man for food. That is basic instinct.

But there is a case that instinctive thoughts are more impulse driven than conscious thought driven. People with poor impulse control are at a disadvantage than someone with high impulse control. There are differencing factors that contribute to impulse control, but a good many are out of our hands.

Is it ethical to hold people to impossible standards? Of course we should not simply dismiss any consideration for holding people accountable for their actions. But too often than not people are thrust against the wall for doing something horrendous and the entire world condemns them as wicked without blinking an eye.

So if we started to look at conditions people have, we might start to see that murder is a product of existing metal health issues and our genes (as in, our impulses we cannot control)?

Teague wrote:
However, getting back to the point of interest, How am I going to argue against a field that has decided on what murder is?

Teague wrote: I can't but what I can do is try to make a case that it can be reconsidered.

Teague wrote: Do you think there is no room to re-evaluate murder as a mental health issue?

Teague wrote:What about racism - by this I'd go with extreme racism rather than institutionalised racism. They're two massively different things so apologies for further conflating the conversation....

Teague wrote:Do you think it's possible to treat someone for racism?

Teague wrote:Do you also think it's possible to treat someone who has murderous tendencies?

Teague wrote:If there cannot be a treatment then are we saying that this is part of human nature?

Teague wrote:OK if so, we can remove that gene from the population and classify it as an "unwanted mutation" or something.

Teague wrote:I'm also thinking that murder is too broad a brush to have a meaningful conversation now. Murder has a lot of different reasons for it. An abused spouse might murder to get away from her abusive husband. That's different from the guy who's dating the girl you want which is different from the guy who's money you want, etc, etc

Sendraks wrote:

However, this still comes down to individuals in this thread arguing with an expert and expecting their comments to be treated with equal weight. I just got the identity of the expert wrong. For which I apologise.

Teague wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Teague wrote:
Usually when asked to provide a source, you provide a source and is hearsay not the act of taking what someone says as fact without checking up on that?

Do you dispute that Shrunk is a psychiatrist?

Do you dispute that claiming someone is something without backing that up is hearsay?